<scribe> scribe: Carlos
<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/621
<Wilco> https://act-rules.github.io/rules/eac66b
Wilco: I think that was a mistake. There was no reasoning behind this.
Emma: Are you saying the atomic rule should not list the SC?
Wilco: Yes, because failing the atomic rule would not fail the SC. Only failing the composite
Emma: Would it be worth putting the SC in the background?
<Wilco> https://act-rules.github.io/rules/f51b46#background
Wilco: There is a link to the understanding document for the SC in the background
Anne: Would it make sense to link to the composite rule?
Emma, Carlos, Jey: +1
Wilco: That's a good idea. Anne to create an issue for this
Wilco: Kasper is suggesting something that is not closed off
... Not familiar with spectrum. Anyone has any experience with that?
Anne: If many of us are using slack then we might want to stick with it
Wilco: I agree with not having more apps than necessary
... We just need to promote it and start a new group with the new CG name
Emma: I think it is possible to rename it
<EmmaJ_PR> https://get.slack.help/hc/en-gb/articles/201663443-Change-your-workspace-or-org-name-and-URL
Wilco: I will dig into that. Anne, do you want to create a PR for creating the documentation?
... Should we create a "Getting involved" page?
Shadi: Yes, we should have one
Wilco: That would be the place to put this
Anne: The email for onboarding Jean-Yves included lots of what we need there
... I will create an issue
<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/597
https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/597
Audrey: This is still a work in progress. I'm trying to apply what I presented in issue #467
Wilco: Is this ready for review?
Audrey: Yes
Jean-Yves: We must be careful when rewriting so that we don't change the meaning
Wilco: I'll put a reviewers wanted label
... I like the direction where this is going
Emma: I like what Audrey's trying to do. We did similar stuff with our guidelines.
https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/597
https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/577
https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/584
<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/issues/584
Wilco: Kasper pointed out that we have been inconsistent in the way we refer to attributes and values
... Is that a problem and if so what do we do about it?
Jean-Yves: This is a problem for the attributes which take values from a list
... In these situations we should use a sentence like "the input element is in the text state"
... and describe how the element can be place in that state
<Wilco> https://act-rules.github.io/rules/73f2c2#applicability
Wilco: I think this example is the correct way to do it
Jean-Yves: Not quite so, because the type property is case-insensitive so HIDDEN instead of hidden would also be applicable
... We should say the input element is in the hidden state
Wilco: I agree for the type attribute, but the type property is normalised
Anne: Would it make sense to dig in the specs?
... We need to look for the state and property definitions and make sure we are using this unambiguously
<Jean-Yves> (I have to run away now... sorry...)
Wilco: I'm not sure about values like "true" for other attributes
Emma: we need to check what the accessibility tree receives instead of what is in the code
Wilco: This is a lot of work. I think we need two people to look into this. Volunteers?
Jean-Yves and Wilco will look into it
<Wilco> https://github.com/act-rules/act-rules.github.io/pull/603/files
Anne: This is a write-up of calls we had previously
... This page describes the rules writing process and the reviewing process
<shadi> +1 to Wilco's suggestion
Wilco: The ACT-TF needs this. We could place a draft label and push it, then come back to it
Anne: We need to add a TBD in the sections that have no content yet
Carlos: It is not clear that this test a SC. Should we treat it as best practice?
Wilco: I thinks this is a best practice
Audrey: I don't think this is a failure
Anne: It might be a failure of 4.1.2 when considering user interface components
Wilco: Not everything that is focusable is a user interface component (e.g. a paragraph with a tabindex)
Emma: We would consider that an error
Wilco: So, would deque, but still related with a best practice
Anne: Even if this is not a failure it would be nice to have
Carlos: I will update it and then put it up for reviewing
Wilco: Don't forget there is a doodle for the f2f meeting in Denmark
<EmmaJ_PR> FYI, you're stuck with me for a while yet